A kinder, gentler response to adolescent “sexting”

A small army of educators and telecom reps met in DC to get America's …

They came from pretty much every sector—nonprofits, government, wireless executives, and think tanks—to a day-long conference in Washington D.C. on how to respond to the panic du jour over kids, mobile phones, and sex. "Sexting," declared one panel moderator, "we might as well just get that big, giant elephant in the room. Parents are absolutely freaking every five minutes, because there's some new technology worry to have to deal with."

The tensest moments at the conference took place during conversations between law enforcement officials and mobile industry representatives. The latter group don't want to be clobbered either. They don't want to be blamed for sexting, and they don't want to be hit with a slew of new data retention laws or regulations.

The Family Online Safety Institute gathered them together on Wednesday for a wireless industry backed conference titled "Wireless Online Safety: Keeping Kids Safe in a Mobile Environment." And while the talk on and off podiums often centered around the "sexting" problem—tweens and teens taking cell phone shots of each other in various states of undress—the bigger focus was on how to move the public from freak-out to problem-solving mode on this phenomenon and its categorical twin: "cyber-bullying."

"My question is why we keep putting so much of this discussion in the context of crime and victimization?" asked Anne Collier of ConnectSafely.org. "The vast majority of the behavior we're talking about is adolescent behavior and risk taking. It's not criminal behavior."

The conference took place at a law office on Pennsylvania Avenue, but much of the discussion focused on the state Pennsylvania, where a state DA threatened to prosecute a pair of girl sexters for distributing child pornography (images of themselves being the alleged porn); or other states where kids caught with this stuff are being classified as sex offenders.

Plenty of dialogue focused on how to dial down this sort of legal goose-stepping. The events' organizers even managed to find a politician who agreed that things were getting out of hand. "We have to be very careful about criminalizing these things," Georgia State Senator Don Balfour warned the gathering. "Let's not clobber these kids." It was a message that this audience of educators and child advocates wanted to hear.

Back to square one

Ars sat down with Stephen Balkam, CEO of FOSI, during the conference lunch break, for a sense of what he hoped to see the Institute's first conference on mobile safety accomplish. A big part of the answer is educating the public, again.

"For years we've been telling parents to put the computer in the living room, keep and eye on what your children are doing, go and hit the history button and review where they've been," Balkam explained. "Well all that advice holds true but it gets completely upended by mobile phones, PDAs, and anything that can walk around."

Given how small many devices have become, it's sometimes a challenge for parents to figure out whether they have an Internet-connected device, Balkam noted. "I'm in the business. It took me two weeks of research to work out the kind of phone to buy for my daughter and then what to switch off in it."

What did he switch off?, we asked.

"Web access," Balkam disclosed. At the time, the service didn't have adequate filters. But "I stupidly restricted her to 250 text messages a month. She blew past that in the first week. So she now has an unlimited plan but she pays me five bucks a month for that." Plus she's got to honor school night restrictions on texting.

You decide

So a lot of the conference was about sharing intel on the latest resources. Advocates came with websites, among them Look Both Ways, a collaborative clearing house for online safety, and Webwisekids.org's new interactive game "It's Your Call." The game poses various cell phone temptations to teens, like discovering the mobile of a classmate you don't like—plus it's packed with compromising photos. "Do you send the pictures to everyone you know?" the program asks. Players then get a taste of the consequences. "It's Your Call is your chance to show that you have what it takes," the demo video says. "You choose. You decide. It's your call."

A lot of kids are going to have to make these calls. Amanda Lenhart of the Pew Internet & American Life Project came armed with a slew of stats on kids and cell phone use. A recent survey indicates that as of last year, 71 percent of teens 12 to 17 own a mobile phone (that's up from 45% in 2004). Eighty-seven percent of 17-year-olds and over half of children 12-13 years of age have one.

And they're talking and texting like crazy. More than half of them talk with their friends on cell phones every day, and over 40 percent of them send messages to online social networks daily. But only 29% of them reported that they actually spend time with friends in person on a day-to-day basis.

Grabbing on to laws

The tensest moments at the conference took place during conversations between law enforcement officials and mobile industry representatives. The latter group don't want to be clobbered either. They don't want to be blamed for sexting, and they don't want to be hit with a slew of new data retention laws or regulations.

"I think the hope is that conversations can help the industry move towards what law enforcement needs," a representative from Sprint suggested during a panel discussion, "things like following up to provide more guidelines about what we have available, without necessarily regulating or being prescriptive and saying everyone must do it this way."

He got sympathy up to a point from Monique Roth of the Department of Justices' Child Exploitation and Obscenity section. "I would not take laws off the table," she noted. "Sometimes they serve a very useful purpose. Certainly sometimes the threat of legislation is one motivating factor for industry."

And the impetus for legislation is not something she can always control, Roth suggested. "This is the one issue that [Congressional representatives] always tend to grab onto. And I know this because I have to review all this legislation, and there's a lot of it that comes through. This is the one place where people are very motivated to try to make a difference by passing new laws."

The wireless industry is all too aware of this enthusiasm, and that's clearly one big reason why this conference was launched. But listening to the participants talk about their new applications, websites, and educational programs, it was hard to see the event as just about that.

"We need to change the discussion from safety 'from' bad stuff to safety 'for'," Collier emphasized. "We live in a participatory culture and democracy. And we want kids to have full, healthy participation. We need to have them safe so they can fully participate in an active global society."

42 Reader Comments

I volunteer to create and run a government backed "clearnignhouse" of sorts through which all these pictures can be received, filtered to appropriate levels for each students home state and age, and then retransmitted to verified recipients. And I will do this all for the paltry sum of $50K a year. Any one want to interview for second in command here?

I don't feel old, but maybe I am reaching that "get off my lawn" mentality. I managed to get by without a cell phone until I was 22. If parents are really that worried about it, remove texting/multimedia messaging from the phone, or god forbid just don't get ur kid a fucking cell phone. Most of us managed to survive high school without one.

Of course while it may stop your precious daughter from sending nude pics to her boyfriend, that will eventually get her labeled a slut when they break up, it will not prevent her from getting felt up in his car, and him spreading rumors that she is a slut when they break up.

I think Anne Collier asked the right question in wondering why many are trying to make this a law enforcement issue and not a risk vs. responsibility one. As Demon pointed out, simply locking down the options on a cell phone or removing your children's access to technology will not prevent them from doing stupid stuff if they don't know any better. I really see this as another case of parents trying to control their kids' behavior through technological, and not behavioral means. If your teen can't be trusted to act responsibly with a cell phone, then you have bigger issues than trying to find out how to lock down web access.

There are plenty of people out there with all sorts of web-enabled camera gadgets that don't place themselves in comprimising positions. Common sense must prevail somewhere.

All this is, is the new version of taking Polaroids of yourself and giving them to your significant other. of course the film is digital and the camera is way smaller, and much quieter than a Polaroid but still, old idea new technology. teens will find new ways to take seductive pictures of themselves and give them to who they want.

Most cell phone carriers will shut off sending and receiving text messages all together if you request it.

There doesn't need to be any response at all, this should be a matter to be dealt with by parents, not law enforcement.

The mistake here is in assuming there is even a problem, certainly there is not a problem that warrants law enforcement interfering with kids lives, public or private, regardless of what they have done. That DA in Pennsylvania should lose his job, he had discretion to refrain from abusing the legal system to change the behavior of the very "children" they claimed to be protecting, and he chose to threaten them with a felony and sex offender status. Congratulations, you're a failure.

The media should also be ashamed of itself, I've seen multiple TV personalities (today show anyone?) go right along with this bullshit groupthink where it is somehow acceptable for the legal system to be punishing kids for taking pictures of themselves or others naked.

I find it quite funny that the legal system completely failed to account for the fact that teenagers might have pictures of each other naked, and in that situation NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG. Stupid, perhaps. Wrong? Not in the moral sense of the word, and absolutely not in the legal sense. Is it technically child porn? Sure. Does it matter? No.

If you want to charge a 35 year old guy for collecting pictures of naked 14 year old girls, fine. There is a wide age difference there, one which we already take into account when enforcing age of consent laws. "Porn" (used loosely here, naked pictures are not automatically porn) should be no different. A situation in which 15 year olds are being stupid and passing around naked pictures of each other, is not a problem for the public to debate, it is a private matter. Parents should smack the shit out of their kids for not thinking of what they were doing and leave it at that. Carriers shouldn't have anything to do with it, and law enforcement can do no good here, period.

There is a very real push in this country to delay sexual maturity for some reason (it occurs around 12, for what its worth), and it has come to the forefront with this sexting crap. The point where you attempt to use the legal system to prevent what is otherwise normal sexual experimentation among those persons who happen to not have reached the arbitrary age at which society seems to have decided that sex is appropriate, is the point at which government and those directing it is being purely abusive.

I have a question. Why don't we add the term "non-consensual" pictures to the CP laws? That removes the current legal issues.

Next, one must find a way to stop the forthcoming issues. Of course if your kid is this stupid to sext, then I would christen the parents a failure. If you can't teach your kids self-control and some semblance of intelligence by this point, you blew it years ago. No parent is perfect and no kid will always obey even the best of parents, but this epidemic shows that we have a problem with stupid parents breeding and raising dumber kids.

Originally posted by Victor Kruger:All this is, is the new version of taking Polaroids of yourself and giving them to your significant other.

No, the barrier to entry is much lower on this. My family never even owned a Polaroid camera, so as a teenager I would have had to find someone with a Polaroid camera, borrow it, find someplace to strip down, and then give that one copy to whoever. Today the majority of teenagers have a cellphone with a camera on the all the time. They can take a picture of themselves whenever, send it to however many people they want, and those people can forward it on. All for free.

Is it a problem? Yes. Should the government or industry do anything about it? I don't see how. If parents want to raise the barrier of entry, get their kids a cellphone without a camera. They aren't terribly common, but they exist. Or get one and with a camera and epoxy or put a hot needle through the camera lens.

Originally posted by mtgarden:I have a question. Why don't we add the term "non-consensual" pictures to the CP laws? That removes the current legal issues.

Well, because the same teenagers (16 in this example) who can legally have sex with adults in most states, drive cars, and work full time, are somehow incapable of deciding if they want to be photographed naked (To say nothing of explicit porn). Being seen naked is super serious business folks.

And younger than 16 is the demilitarized zone, they're sexually mature, but we do need to protect those people because they DON'T fully understand what they're doing.

Originally posted by mtgarden:I have a question. Why don't we add the term "non-consensual" pictures to the CP laws? That removes the current legal issues.

Next, one must find a way to stop the forthcoming issues. Of course if your kid is this stupid to sext, then I would christen the parents a failure. If you can't teach your kids self-control and some semblance of intelligence by this point, you blew it years ago. No parent is perfect and no kid will always obey even the best of parents, but this epidemic shows that we have a problem with stupid parents breeding and raising dumber kids.

Because the age of the "sexters" and their ability to consent is the whole reason its an issue. They've been determined to be unable to consent to sexual activity of any kind, because of their age. Trying to develop a law to remove the legal issues would be near impossible because of the laws already on the books not to mention community outcry (rational and otherwise). What this issue needs is reasonable application of the laws already on the books. First time its found out? Law enforcement doesn't need to intervene and it remains a school/parent issue. The images are deleted and the parents have a talk with their kids and restrict their phone usage if necessary. Law enforcement should only be intervening if its a chronic issue and the parents are unable to take care of it or there is abuse involved.

quote:Of course if your kid is this stupid to sext, then I would christen the parents a failure.

Teenagers are pretty stupid in general, no matter what kind of parents they have. Having raging hormones and being surrounded by other stupid people will do that to you.

I second the hormones thing. I've got a 16 year old girl who ranges from genius to imbecile in a matter of moments, particularly when a cute guy walks by. I also have a clear memory of my own chaotic youth (long long ago) and shudder at the opportunities to screw up my life if I had the technology she has today.

Oh well, I've given my lectures, I try to keep my finger on the pulse of her life, but I've GOT to give her enough freedom to screw up on her own.

This cannot be solved by making it illegal. The evolutionary impulse to preserve our DNA is too damn strong to rely on 'good parenting'. You do your best, then watch them fall and pick themselves up a few times.

The REAL reason that parents are screaming is that they don't want to be publicly humiliated by their kids' actions. Too bad. You have teenagers? Prepare for humiliation. But also be prepared to be amazed as they DO figure it out and get on with their lives.

Originally posted by mrsteveman1:The mistake here is in assuming there is even a problem, certainly there is not a problem that warrants law enforcement interfering with kids lives, public or private, regardless of what they have done. That DA in Pennsylvania should lose his job, he had discretion to refrain from abusing the legal system to change the behavior of the very "children" they claimed to be protecting, and he chose to threaten them with a felony and sex offender status. Congratulations, you're a failure.

I agree, but I believe that the DA job is an elected office. If he isn't tough on sexting, then whoever runs against him will beat him up for it. Its a "why aren't you thinking of the children" race to the bottom.

Originally posted by mrsteveman1:The mistake here is in assuming there is even a problem, certainly there is not a problem that warrants law enforcement interfering with kids lives, public or private, regardless of what they have done. That DA in Pennsylvania should lose his job, he had discretion to refrain from abusing the legal system to change the behavior of the very "children" they claimed to be protecting, and he chose to threaten them with a felony and sex offender status. Congratulations, you're a failure.

I agree, but I believe that the DA job is an elected office. If he isn't tough on sexting, then whoever runs against him will beat him up for it. Its a "why aren't you thinking of the children" race to the bottom.

I think that's one of those "common wisdoms" that's actually dead wrong, and I am sick to death of people apologizing for politicians' actions by blaming voters. Sure, people aren't all that bright, but neither are politicians, and the common wisdom is stupid, short-sighted, and I believe quite wrong. This whole "tough on crime" mentality to the point of prosecuting teenagers for sexual curiosity is a deep puritanical sickness that needs to be rooted out of our culture.

I have a problem with this whole thing, if youre protecting them as a child, then they must be charged as a child, in juvenile court, in which case they cant be labeled a sex offender because juvenile court records are sealed. if you are claiming they're an adult when they send these pictures then you cant claim child pornography, because you are saying they acted as an adult when the pictures are taken.

you cannot claim to be protecting their innocence as a child and persecute them as an adult in the same breath, its a failing mentality...

The Whole CP problem is really a "precrime" issue. Even a pederast is at worst viewing somebody else's crime of abusing a child. But the law goes further that even if the image is entirely CG it is still as illegal as if the person took the picture of an actual child themselves.

Make the actual attack on the child illegal certainly, but a family member taking a picture of two small boys sword fighting with cucumbers, that destroys the entire family over it (as happened)not only is a crime against that innocent family, but takes the onus off real sex offenders, to be lumped in with those who had a thoughtless second with lifetime repercussions.

What is being talked about is what went on behind woodsheds and in attics long before there were even cars to be in the back seat of, brought to current technology. It was certainly a child raising issue then and is still today, the technology has changed but the various approaches are still a part of folk songs written a thousand years ago, pretty much without change.

Or you could just, yanno, not buy your child a cellphone. It's not like they have an important job they need it for. If you absolutely have to get them one, get them an ultra basic model so you can call them/leave them voice mails and thats it. They don't need to be spending all their time on the phone chatting away with their friends.

These days, parenting is an absolute joke. They take 0 interest in their child's life and only get angry and up in arms when something that was THEIR job to prevent happens, and of course they blame anyone but themselves. We really need to go back to the 50's parenting ideals where parents aren't the child's friend but are instead god almighty and the enforcer of ultimate law.

I can't believe "sexting" can be prosecuted but getting pregnant or impregnating somebody as a teenager cannot. I think there should be a lot of freedoms, but to have children irresponsibly shouldn't be one of them. Is there a link between these behaviors? I don't know. It's too bad it's considered a "civil right" or not a legal issue to have kids you can't enforce.

Let's switch the laws to focus on things that count. Let people do whatever they want, straight, gay, as teenagers, while taking pictures, you name it, but once they cross the line to having children they can't afford or care for, you drop the bomb on them. If that means some people get involuntary sterilization, well, that may be what's necessary to remedy their behavior. We can lose our driver's license but not our "have illegitimate children license"? Which is the bigger responsibility?

This is the loophole that will allow for the legalization of child porn IMO. Once children can legally produce and distribute and possess content created by other children, then enforcing current laws becomes impossible. It opens the door for wholesale sexual exploitation of children. That appears to be the last remaining taboo besides incest left to overturn.

Originally posted by katorga:This is the loophole that will allow for the legalization of child porn IMO. Once children can legally produce and distribute and possess content created by other children, then enforcing current laws becomes impossible. It opens the door for wholesale sexual exploitation of children. That appears to be the last remaining taboo besides incest left to overturn.

The only response the government has anymore to any sex "crime" is the life sentence, and giving teenagers life sentences for being teenagers is appalling.

katorgaThis is the loophole that will allow for the legalization of child porn IMO. Once children can legally produce and distribute and possess content created by other children, then enforcing current laws becomes impossible. It opens the door for wholesale sexual exploitation of children. That appears to be the last remaining taboo besides incest left to overturn.

Tell me how this is anything new? Adolescents discovering their own sexuality is a natural thing and has been happening since man started walking on two legs. I guess you're in favor of ruining childrens lives for all eternity by placing the stigma of "sex offender" upon them for having the audacity to do what comes naturally. These kids need guidance not jail time.

This is really a parenting issue. Also a perfect example of why government shouldn't legislate morality and the harm that can come from such legislation.

Originally posted by DigitalMan:I think Anne Collier asked the right question in wondering why many are trying to make this a law enforcement issue and not a risk vs. responsibility one. As Demon pointed out, simply locking down the options on a cell phone or removing your children's access to technology will not prevent them from doing stupid stuff if they don't know any better. I really see this as another case of parents trying to control their kids' behavior through technological, and not behavioral means.

Restriction vs. behavior, not technology. This same thing happens plenty of ways other then through technology.

Originally posted by katorga:This is the loophole that will allow for the legalization of child porn IMHO. Once children can legally produce and distribute and possess content created by other children, then enforcing current laws becomes impossible. It opens the door for wholesale sexual exploitation of children. That appears to be the last remaining taboo besides incest left to overturn.

T,FTFY

You think teenagers fooling around with each other is a taboo? Like incest?

quote:

Originally posted by drunkpotato:This whole "tough on crime" mentality to the point of prosecuting teenagers for sexual curiosity is a deep puritanical sickness that needs to be rooted out of our culture.

Couldn't have said it better myself. *Sigh* ...God, I just want to shoot myself in the face. Can we please lose some of the irrational prejudices and blind outrage? Please?? Y'know, I think the hysteria surrounding these issues is a good argument for legalization of marijuana. In fact, let's make it compulsory. Everyone must smoke a bowl a day... maybe two. Especially katorga.

I find this whole debate outrageous. Kids are kids. It should be the parents' responsibility, not the legal system's to slap some sense into the kid for doing something of that nature.

I'm not sure if anyone else would agree, but age does not, in my opinion, automatically warrant maturity. Age is a number; maturity is the ability to distinguish which choices are harmful or helpful to one's life, and knowing how to handle them as they come. However, the government insists on putting people into nice easy boxes when the real issue, i.e. hormones, is messy and complicated.

It's funny. These people are acting as if this sort of sexual experimentation behaviour has never existed before mobile phones. Or webcams. Or polaroids. Or just plain taking off your clothes at so and so's bash.

A friend of mine who worked in a photo processing lab some years ago before digital cameras took off said he'd get a reel of such images every once in a while. Their rule was that as long as no laws were being broken (i.e. pedophilia) then they just turned a blind eye.

Originally posted by darkowl:A friend of mine who worked in a photo processing lab some years ago before digital cameras took off said he'd get a reel of such images every once in a while. Their rule was that as long as no laws were being broken (i.e. pedophilia) then they just turned a blind eye.

Many of the comments here about restricting use of the phone or not supplying the phone mirror my initial thoughts. However I think that many people aren't realising that the teenagers seem to be using their cell phone in a fundamentally different manner to you or I.

I have a phone, I carry it around with me every day and each day I would make or receive a few calls, maybe even a text message or two.

The teenager is the article sends over 250 text messages a week. That's 36 text messages a day, roughly two and a half per waking hour.

This is a completely different usage pattern and a symptom of different social interactions. To deny a child the ability to interact with their peers in this manner, it's not a flippant thing to do. Removing their phone would be socially ostracising them at a time of their life when they are most vulnerable.

I can see why aliens would want to come down to Earth and wipe out all the humans so the Earth's recovery process could begin... Doesn't anyone learn from history? For crying out loud, one only has to look at the 1960's to get a clue. Drugs, Sex, Text, Internet, & Rock n Roll. Yea Baby!

- AMG nakedness is bad! - Sex is the beginning of moral annihilation...- Children need to be shielded and proteted all the time!

Really moms and dads over here, don't you think we as parents are letting ourselves be made crazy? Most of my friends who now have stable (top!)jobs, kids and a responsible look on life started to have sex between 14 and 20, and it makes no discernible difference. And we started to think//talk/look at naughty bits at around 12... I guess we never stopped even though we all hit 40 ^^

What is becoming of our kids when all we say is that we need to shield them? Will karen get so fed up with us that she moves out at 16? Or will Darren feel sad and can't talk to his freaking out parents and move from Hashiesh to heavier stuff?

As a teen and young twen I made mistakes. So did all my friends. Some of them still make me cringe with shame, but regret? Nope, growing up is falling and standing up. Glass cages are not what I would connect with good parenting.

I feel that parents are responsible for all these crazy things. If you bring up your kids properly and have a good rapport with them.....none of these things will take place. I found this cool alert service called Trackle(www.trackle.com).It allows you to track crime in your neighborhood.Maybe this way we can catch these maniacs who are trying to ruin the lives of innocent kids.

I don't see why anyone talks about this, it's a total non-issue. We are animals, and the clothes we wear are intended to protect us from the elements, now because of cultural evolution, it's an art or status expression. We are all made of the same stuff here, maybe if people got over themselves and stopped pretending nudity matters this would go away. I don't see any sexting outcry in Europe.

Sexualization occurs at puberty, once people get over that and stop clinging to their bizarre ideas of appropriateness and their cusious desire to apply their own opinions on everyone else, this will go away. No one is forcing you or yours to sext anyone. The problem here is the adults, not the kids.

If I was 13 I would plaster my image allover the internetz just to watch a bunch of facist nanny-state control freaks try to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body and belongings because THEY have hangups over it.

Sorry, the younger generation has a new consensus on these issues, and if you don't like it you better keep it to yourself or they'll stick you in a crappy home when the time comes. If they don't care, then it does not matter.

We're supposed to focus on depriving others of life and liberty, not telling them how to live because we have a monopoly on the one right way to do things.

It's funny to see how Americans act, when in Africa people walk around naked all day naked, Eskimos copulate in their Igloos with their sleeping kids not 6 feet away, and naked people of all ages meet in Scandinavian saunas to relax.

The problem is a bunch of outdated religious prudery that (luckily) our younger generation seems to have immunity to. About time if you ask me.

Is this really a problem which is going to destroy society as we know it? I hope so. Maybe then we can come up with a better one. This one has some pretty sick views about sex and sexuality and how to deal with it. So what do we call it if not sexting?

While I agree with Martin there is one thing to consider, in addition to being a nation of puritanical prudes, we are also the fattest nation on the planet. I certainly don't find the human body to be morally offensive, I do find the site of a 300+ pound person to be utterly revolting. I would love to see the puritanical gibberish burned from our society, but but can we make sure that at the very least obese people are not allowed to walk around unclothed.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.